Exobox Technologies Corp. v. Tsambis

Filing 45

ORDER that denying 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the issue. FURTHER ORDERED that 7 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (contained within 15 Response to Motion) is DENIED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/6/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

EXOBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

Case No. 2:14-cv-00501-RFB-VCF
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DIMISS

v.
ZACHARY TSAMBIS, et al.,

11

Defendant.

12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION

14

Exobox Technologies Corp. (“Exobox”), a Nevada Corporation, has filed suit against

15

Zachary Tsambis, a Pennsylvania resident, in the District of Nevada, alleging Intentional

16

Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage and Civil Conspiracy for Tsambis’s role in

17

interrupting a deal to acquire a majority equity interest in another company. Claiming that he

18

lacks contacts with Nevada sufficient to subject him to personal jurisdiction, Tsambis has, in the

19

instant motion, moved for Summary Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). This Court,

20

however, for the reasons discussed below, finds that Tsambis is subject to personal jurisdiction in

21

Nevada.

22
23
24

II.

BACKGROUND
A. Facts

25

Exobox is a Nevada corporation publicly traded on the over-the-counter market. Exobox

26

has a principle place of business in Long Beach, California and conducts business in Clark

27

County, Nevada.

28

Zachary Tsambis is a resident of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and claims to have

1

been an Exobox shareholder at all relevant times; Exobox claims Tsambis was not a shareholder.

2

Tsambis is a moderator on the Investorshub (“iHub”) website and regularly participates in online

3

messages boards discussing investments, including investments in Exobox. Exobox claims

4

Tsambis has claimed to be a custodian of records for Exobox and that Tsambis offered Exobox’s

5

former CEO $20,000 to step down and appoint Tsambis CEO. Tsambis does not reside in

6

Nevada and does not do business in Nevada. Tsambis registered two corporations in Nevada,

7

which he claims never materialized into operating businesses.

8

In early 2014, Exobox announced publicly in a Form 8-K Current Report that it was

9

going to acquire a majority of the equity interests in Cherubim Builders Group, LLC from PDX

10

Partners, Inc. (“Share Exchange”). Exobox claims that the Share Exchange would have raised

11

significant and much-needed funds and that Exobox shareholders would maintain their interest in

12

Exobox through the new public company and would also be given shares of the emergent,

13

publicly traded Cherubim Builders Group company. Tsambis claims the transaction served no

14

legitimate business purpose and violated a shareholders’ vote. The Share Exchange deal was set

15

to close by February 28, 2014.

16

Tsambis used the iHub and other message boards to make statements about Exobox and

17

threatened to file a lawsuit to enjoin Exobox from consummating the Share Exchange. Tsambis

18

stated on the iHub forums, “I’m of the opinion that this transaction will not go through as it is

19

stated,” Compl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 1, “our holdings will become burnt toast if we don’t stop this

20

(dilution) deal,” and “I’m of the strong belief that some fireworks may go off real soon that may

21

stop the proposed [deal],” Compl. ¶ 15 (alteration in original). Tsambis also contacted Exobox’s

22

CEO directly, saying, “But know there is a die-hard group of large shareholders who I believe

23

would rather see this ship sink then [sic] to see someone else make off with any of the leftover

24

goods . . . .” Compl. ¶ 16 (alteration in original). Later, Tsambis used iHub to solicit and obtain

25

funds from other Exobox shareholders to finance the threatened lawsuit. On or about February

26

28, 2014, Tsambis used these solicited funds to file a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Share

27

Exchange, in Harris County, Texas. The Share Exchange was cancelled; Exobox claims this

28

caused it monetary damages.

-2-

B. Procedure

1
2

On April 3, 2014, Exobox filed the Complaint in the present case in the District of

3

Nevada. In its Complaint, Exobox claims two causes of action. First, Exobox claims Tsambis

4

intentionally interfered with prospective economic advantage by taking actions which resulted in

5

the termination of the Share Exchange. Compl. ¶ 31–40. Second, Exobox claims Tsambis and

6

other to-be-named Exobox shareholders joined in a civil conspiracy to finance litigation intended

7

to disrupt and prevent the Share Exchange. Compl. ¶ 41–47.
On June 13, 2014, Tsambis filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal

8
9

jurisdiction. ECF No. 8.

10
11

III.

Motion to Strike

12

Nestled in Exobox’s response to Tsambis’s Motion to Dismiss is what appears to be a

13

motion to strike the instant Motion to Dismiss for failure to comply with District of Nevada

14

Local Rule IA 10-2. Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss 2:16–24, ECF No. 15. Local Rule IA 10-2(a)

15

states, “An attorney who is not a member of the Bar of this Court, who has been retained or

16

appointed to appear in a particular case, may do so only with permission of this Court.” The

17

Local rules go on to require that “[a]n attorney whose verified petition is pending shall take no

18

action in this case beyond filing the first pleading or motion.” D. Nev. R. IA 10-2(c). Local

19

Rule IA 10-2(k) provides that “[f]ailure to comply timely with this Rule may result in the

20

striking of any and all documents previously filed by such attorney, the imposition of other

21

sanctions, or both.”

22

Here, Tsambis filed motions on behalf of himself that Exobox claims were

23

“ghostwritten” by Suzanne J. DuBose, an attorney who is not licensed to practice law in Nevada.

24

Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss 2:20–23. This claim is supported by, among other things, the curious

25

“Certificate of Conference” attached to Tsambis’s instant Motion.

26

However, the language of Local Rule IA 10-2 clearly and narrowly contemplates restrictions

27

only on who may “appear” before this Court in a particular case and not broader questions about

28

who may practice law in the State of Nevada. This Court declines to consider whether the

-3-

Mot. to Dismiss 17.

1

alleged ghostwriting implicates any Nevada laws, and it declines, at this time, to inquire into this

2

matter in the context of deciding the instant motion. Local Rule IA 10-2 is a discretionary rule

3

as to discipline and sanctions. The Court declines to exercise such discretion at this time.
Exobox’s motion to strike is accordingly denied.

4
5
6

IV.

Motion for Evidentiary Hearing

7

In deciding personal jurisdiction, the court may in its discretion order discovery, hold an

8

evidentiary hearing, or rely only on the written submissions. Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915,

9

922 (9th Cir. 2001); Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir.

10

1977) (“Because there is no statutory method for resolving this issue, the mode of its

11

determination is left to the trial court.”).

12

Here, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the pleadings and moving papers

13

to render a decision. Therefore, Tsambis’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing, ECF No. 7, is

14

denied.

15
16
17
18
19
20

V.

Motion of Summary Judgment for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
For the reasons given below, Tsambis’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal

Jurisdiction, ECF No. 8, is denied.
A. Legal Standard
A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction.

Tuazon v. R.J.

21

Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th Cir. 2006). When, as here, the Court resolves

22

the motion to dismiss based only on written submissions, a plaintiff must make a prima facie

23

showing of facts that would support personal jurisdiction. Id. That is, Plaintiffs “need only

24

demonstrate facts that if true would support jurisdiction.” Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498

25

(9th Cir.1995).

26

To establish that personal jurisdiction over a defendant is proper, a plaintiff must show

27

(1) that the forum state’s long-arm statute confers personal jurisdiction and (2) that the exercise

28

of jurisdiction comports with the constitutional principles of due process. Rio Properties, Inc. v.

-4-

1

Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002). Because Nev. Rev. Stat. section 14.065

2

permits Nevada courts to exercise jurisdiction to the same extent as the Constitution, this Court

3

need only consider the constitutional principles of due process. Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct.

4

1115, 1121 (2014).

5
6
7
8

B. Analysis
1. General Jurisdiction
Exobox argues that Nevada has general personal jurisdiction over Tsambis.

This

argument is not convincing.

9

Personal jurisdiction can be general or specific. General personal jurisdiction is an

10

exacting standard which requires “continuous and systematic” contacts that “approximate

11

physical presence.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir.

12

2004). “Put another way, a defendant must not only step through the [jurisdictional] door, it

13

must also sit down and make itself at home.” Tuazon, 433 F.3d at 1169 (internal quotation

14

marks omitted); see Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2853–

15

54 (2011) (“For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the

16

individual's domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is

17

fairly regarded as at home.”).

18

In support of its argument for general jurisdiction, Exobox contends that Tsambis

19

incorporated, and is the sole managing member of, two Nevada limited liability companies and

20

in that role “would have been the one to appoint” the Nevada registered agents for these

21

companies. Id. at 4:7–10; accord Id. 4:12–14. Exobox claims that, as of the time of filing, one

22

of these companies’ business licenses had been revoked but that the other license was still active.

23

Exobox further states that Tsambis is not only a shareholder who posts messages, but that he also

24

is highly involved in Exobox’s business through online messaging, message board moderation,

25

online organization of shareholders, and operating his own Exobox-focused website. Tsambis

26

acknowledges the registration of the two Nevada companies (which he claims never conducted

27

any business), three vacation trips to Nevada, and involvement with Exobox through online

28

websites. Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 17; Aff. of Zachary Tsambis 1–2.

-5-

1

The Court finds that Tsambis’ connections to Nevada and his actions within it are

2

insufficient to establish general jurisdiction. The two Nevada corporations do not appear to have

3

actually done business in Nevada.

4

transactions of Exobox and do not suggest systemic contacts with Nevada. Tsambis has no other

5

contacts which could be construed as continuous and systemic.

6

Tsambis’ online contacts are focused on particular

2. Specific Jurisdiction

7

Exobox does, however, make out a prima facie case for specific jurisdiction.

8

Specific jurisdiction requires certain minimum contacts and must not offend traditional

9

notions of fair play and substantial justice. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801 (quoting Int'l Shoe

10

Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 216 (1945)). This “minimum contacts” test requires three things:

11

(1) the defendant must have purposefully directed specific activities toward the state forum, (2)

12

the plaintiff's claim must arise out of or relate to those specific forum-related activities, and (3)

13

the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. be reasonable.

14

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two

15

elements, and then, if the plaintiff successfully does so, the defendant has the burden of

16

presenting a compelling case that jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Id.

17
18

a. Purposeful Direction
The purposeful direction requirement has three necessary elements.

To satisfy the

19

purposeful direction requirement the defendant “must have (1) committed an intentional act, (2)

20

expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be

21

suffered in the forum state.” Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124,

22

1128 (9th Cir. 2010). This is sometimes referred to as the “effects test” or “Calder test.” See

23

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984).

24

i.

Intentional Act

25

An intentional act requires “an intent to perform an actual, physical act in the real world,

26

rather than an intent to accomplish a result or consequence of that act.” Brayton Purcell, 606

27

F.3d at 1128. It is undisputed that Tsambis acted intentionally when he posted several messages

28

online regarding Exobox. He also acted intentionally when he filed a lawsuit in Texas directed

-6-

1
2

at Exobox in Nevada.
ii.

Expressly Aimed

3

Express aiming requires more than mere foreseeability, it requires conduct expressly

4

aimed at the forum state. Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d at 1129. The express aiming requirement is

5

satisfied when defendant is alleged to have engaged in wrongful conduct targeted at plaintiff

6

whom defendant knows to be a resident of the forum state. CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne,

7

Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1077 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, Tsambis has posted online messages and filed

8

a Texas lawsuit against Exobox, which he knew to be a Nevada corporation, and in doing so

9

expressly aimed his conduct into Nevada. Tsambis argues that this action is inadequate to

10

demonstrate express aiming. This Court disagrees.

11

Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the express aiming requirement clearly establishes that

12

behavior, such as that allegedly done by Tsambis, is “expressly aimed.” For example, in Myers

13

v. Bennett Law Offices, the Ninth Circuit found that a Utah defendant had expressly aimed his

14

conduct into Nevada when he requested credit reports on Nevada residents. 238 F.3d 1068, 1073

15

(9th Cir. 2001). Perhaps even more instructive, in Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc.,

16

the Ninth Circuit held that a letter sent from Georgia to a Virginia domain registration company

17

targeting a California corporation constituted express aiming at California. 223 F.3d 1082, 1088

18

(9th Cir. 2000) holding modified by Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et

19

L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006). In Bancroft, the letter to the Virginia domain

20

registration company was sent with the intention of triggering the Virginia company’s dispute

21

resolution procedures which would interfere with the California company’s internet operations.

22

Here, Exobox claims, litigation was begun in Texas with the intent to interfere with a Nevada

23

company’s business transactions. This is expressly aimed conduct.

24

Tsambis asks this Court to read the recently decided Supreme Court case, Walden, 134 S.

25

Ct. 1115, as overturning Bancroft and related cases that say contact with a resident in Nevada is

26

sufficient to find conduct is expressly aimed. The Court declines to do so for two reasons. First,

27

Walden is factually distinguishable from this case as well as from Bancroft. In Walden, a pair of

28

professional gamblers were traveling from San Juan to Las Vegas, through Atlanta, with a

-7-

1

substantial amount of cash. Id. at 1118. In Atlanta, the cash was seized by a DEA agent who

2

thereafter allegedly drafted a false and misleading affidavit to show probable cause for forfeiture.

3

Id. at 1118–20. The Supreme Court held that a Nevada court was not allowed to exercise

4

personal jurisdiction over a defendant on the basis that he knew his allegedly tortious conduct in

5

Georgia would have delayed the return of funds to the claimants with connections to Nevada.

6

The Supreme Court explained that “[t]he plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant

7

and the forum.” The Court further explained that “it is the defendant's conduct that must form

8

the necessary connection with the forum State that is the basis for its jurisdiction over him.” Id.

9

at 1122–23.

10

In Walden, it was “undisputed that no part of petitioner’s course of conduct occurred in

11

Nevada.” Id. at 1124. In contrast, here (as in Bancroft) the Plaintiffs do not rely on the “random,

12

fortuitous, or attenuated contacts” or the “unilateral activity” of a plaintiff to establish contact

13

with the forum state. Id. at 1123. Exobox points to the unilateral actions of Tsambis directed to

14

the forum state. In Walden, Defendant directed his activities at an entity that incidentally

15

happened to be going to Nevada. In this case, Tsambis chose to direct his activities to an entity

16

known to be in Nevada.

17

Second, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Walden stops well short of overturning the

18

Bancroft line of cases. Rather, the Supreme Court decided Walden narrowly on the facts before

19

it. Until a higher court overrules it, Bancroft is still the law of this Circuit and binds this Court.

20

Because Bancroft is more analogous—and Walden is distinguishable—from the instant case, this

21

Court must apply Bancroft. Accordingly, this Court finds that Tsambis has expressly aimed his

22

conduct into Nevada.

23
iii.
24
25

Harm in Forum State

“The final element requires that [the Defendant’s] conduct caused harm that it knew was
likely to be suffered in the forum,” but “does not require that the ‘brunt’ of the harm be suffered

26
in the forum.” Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d at 1131. Exobox is a Nevada corporation that conducts
27
28

business in Clark County, Nevada. Complaint ¶ 1. Exobox claims Tsambis “knew Exobox was
a Nevada company.” Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss 7:21. Here, it is foreseeable that Exobox would
-8-

1

be harmed by the online posts and the Texas lawsuit, and it is, thus, also foreseeable that harm

2

would occur in Nevada, where Exobox was incorporated.
b. Relation to Specific Forum Activities

3
4
5

There is no dispute that Exobox’s claim arises out of or relate to Tsambis’s online
postings and his Texas lawsuit.
c.

6

Reasonableness/Fair Play and Substantial Justice

7

In evaluating whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play

8

and substantial justice, “courts in ‘appropriate case[s]’ may evaluate ‘the burden on the

9

defendant,’ ‘the forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute,’ ‘the plaintiff's interest in

10

obtaining convenient and effective relief,’ ‘the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining

11

the most efficient resolution of controversies,’ and the ‘shared interest of the several States in

12

furthering fundamental substantive social policies.’” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.

13

462, 476–77 (1985) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292

14

(1980)). The burden is on Tsambis to make a compelling case why jurisdiction would be

15

unreasonable. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. It is rare for fair play and substantial justice to

16

“defeat the reasonableness of jurisdiction even [though] the defendant has purposefully engaged

17

in forum activities.” Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Solano Cnty., 480

18

U.S. 102, 116 (1987) (Brennan, J., concurring) (alteration in original) (quoting Burger King, 471

19

U.S. at 477–78).

20

To support this argument, Tsambis first recites a litany of fifteen things he has not done

21

in Nevada including reside, maintain a place of business, apply for licenses or establish his

22

family. Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 20. Second, Tsambis indicates that litigating in Nevada would be a

23

burden. Id. at ¶ 21. Next, Tsambis points out that there is already a pending lawsuit in Texas

24

and that there will be two actions in two separate states which will waste judicial resources and

25

might end in different results. Id. at ¶ 22. Finally, Tsambis suggests Nevada “has no real interest

26

in adjudicating the dispute” because Exobox’s “nerve center” has not been in Nevada. Id. These

27

arguments are not compelling.

28

First, Tsambis’s list of things he has not done in Nevada simply reiterates his arguments

-9-

1

about minimum contacts and speaks more to the issue of a lack of general jurisdiction.

2

Tsambis’s suggestion that Nevada has no real interest is similarly inapposite. “A State generally

3

has a ‘manifest interest’ in providing its residents with a convenient forum for redressing injuries

4

inflicted by out-of-state actors.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 473. It is not disputed that Exobox is

5

incorporated in Nevada, and Tsambis’s contention that Exobox’s nerve center was in Texas—

6

and that by extension Texas may also have an interest—does not negate Nevada’s interest in its

7

corporate citizen’s welfare.

8

The mere fact that local litigation is inconvenient—or some other forum may be more

9

convenient—is not enough; rather Tsambis “must show that jurisdiction in [Nevada] would

10

make the litigation ‘so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party unfairly is at a severe

11

disadvantage in comparison to his opponent.’” Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1365 (9th Cir.

12

1990) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478). As the Ninth Circuit observed twenty-four years

13

ago, requiring a nonresident to defend in a distant state “in this era of fax machines and discount

14

air travel” is not unreasonable. Id. Remote litigation is even more convenient in the era of

15

electronic filing and telephonic hearings. Relatedly, while litigation in two different states is less

16

efficient that litigation in one state, it is unclear how this affects fairness to Tsambis (beyond the

17

inconvenience addressed above). Jurisdiction in Nevada is not unreasonable and is not an affront

18

to fair play and substantial justice.
Therefore, Tsambis has the minimum contacts necessary, pursuant to Schwarzenegger,

19
20

for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction in Nevada.

21

VI.

Conclusion

22

Because, as discussed above, Exobox has made out a prima facie case for specific

23

personal jurisdiction, Tsambis’s Motion to Dismiss must be denied. However, Tsambis may

24

raise the issue of personal jurisdiction later should evidence be available that supports such a

25

motion at that time. Accordingly,

26
27
28

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction,
ECF No. 8, is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the issue.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion Requesting Evidentiary Hearing,

- 10 -

1
2
3
4

ECF. No. 7, is DENIED with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER OREDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, ECF No. 15 at 2:16–24,
is DENIED with prejudice.
Dated: January 2, 2015.
January 6, 2015.

5
6

RICHARD F. BOULWARE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 11 -